Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

Amazon Seeks Recusal of FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan in Antitrust Investigations of Company (wsj.com) 83

Amazon.com filed a request with the Federal Trade Commission seeking the recusal of new Chairwoman Lina Khan from antitrust investigations of the company, in light of her extensive past criticisms of the company. From a report: "Given her long track record of detailed pronouncements about Amazon, and her repeated proclamations that Amazon has violated the antitrust laws, a reasonable observer would conclude that she no longer can consider the company's antitrust defenses with an open mind," Amazon said in a 25-page recusal motion filed with the FTC.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Seeks Recusal of FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan in Antitrust Investigations of Company

Comments Filter:
  • In other words (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @10:56AM (#61537286) Homepage

    In other words they have no valid legal defense.

    They're hoping to get somebody with zero experience instead of somebody who knows what they're doing.

    • In other words they have no valid legal defense.

      They're hoping to get somebody with zero experience instead of somebody who knows what they're doing.

      Nah, Amazon just misses their best bud Ajit Pai(d)

      • That's FCC not FTC.

      • What? Ashit Pile was dumped?

        What happened? I'm gone half a year and the world turns better?

        I dunno if I should feel insulted...

        • by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
          There was a tiny thing that happened in the U.S. on January 20th of this year.
          • Yes... but it was just the 46th, nothing big and fancy... but thanks for noticing.

            Though it's kinda creepy, how the hell do you know my birthday?

        • by spun ( 1352 )

          FTC is not FCC. I know, they are confusingly similar, but one handles Trade while the other handles Communications.

        • What? Ashit Pile was dumped?

          What happened? I'm gone half a year and the world turns better?

          In other news: Donald Trump is no longer president.

    • So that's how Microsoft got off Scot-free.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Or they have a valid concern that someone with a documented [nytimes.com] history of anti-Amazon publications [archive.is] can be impartial in any decisions involving the company.

      Hey, Ajit Pai was considered a shill for Big Tech because he used to work for Verizon, so what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?

      • Re:In other words (Score:4, Insightful)

        by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @11:22AM (#61537374)
        The distinction that you nor Amazon make is whether those criticisms were fair. I am pretty sure that tobacco companies would request recusal of a Surgeon General for being "anti-tobacco" for pesky concerns like lung cancer.
        • She felt amazon was violating antitrust rules. She was appointed to FTC and is now going after them. There's no requirement for her to be fair -- it was her pre-appointment opinion that got her the job because those appointing her thought she made good points and agreed w/her.

          Amazon is complaining because she also is likely to know what she is doing to investigate them and determine remedies.

          It's a bit like a criminal caught at the scene being prosecuted by those who saw him at the scene. So Sad!

    • Yep. She must be doing something right.
    • Nah. The real "in other words" is, "We attempted bribery, er, um, we mean contributions, of course, but payment was refused. We need to place someone pliable to monetary compensation for looking the other way in this position."

      I will agree they'd prefer someone with no experience, but the real requirement is somebody that will just accept payment and move on.

  • There are definitely things that Amazon can and should be sued for, but not the speculative crap she talks about. This woman hates Amazon and peddles BS about it.

    • What "speculative crap" do you find objectionable?
      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        When they say 'speculative crap' they mostly mean 'some right wing talking head told me that I should hate her for being anti business for reasons'
        • Damn, and me without mod points.. Huzzah!
        • She claims Amazon can get a monopoly and then raise prices. Her claim is that anyone who makes something cheap and becomes popular will be able to increase the price of that item and prevent consumers from accessing a cheaper product. Has that happened? It can't happen.

          The fact is, if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can still emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers. I mean, if a charger costs $1000 from Amazon .. word that somebody else can pro

          • She claims Amazon can get a monopoly and then raise prices.

            Antitrust concerns 101. Your point is as silly as saying the FDA is engaging by "speculative crap" when they require testing because "drugs may show adverse reactions".

            Her claim is that anyone who makes something cheap and becomes popular will be able to increase the price of that item and prevent consumers from accessing a cheaper product. Has that happened? It can't happen.

            Again, Antitrust 101. And it has happened. See the entire history of antitrust. What you seem to miss is that the price of such a product is more than the market allows by artificial means. The product may still be affordable but artificially increased.

            The fact is, if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can still emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers.

            Again missed the point. If Amazon controls the distribution of USB chargers, they would cos

            • Besides oil and certain mined commodities, whose price is entirely dictated by government policy and regulations (they won't allow unlimited drilling), name some product or service that was once available cheap but is now expensive thanks to being monopolized?

              • Besides oil and certain mined commodities, whose price is entirely dictated by government policy and regulations (they won't allow unlimited drilling), name some product or service that was once available cheap but is now expensive thanks to being monopolized?

                Again, you seem not to misunderstand what antitrust is. It is not that 1 company controls 100% of a market and raises the price to a bazillion times more expensive. The factor is whether the prices has been inflated by artificial means and not by market conditions. For example, DRAM price fixing [wikipedia.org] where multiple RAM makers colluded to fix prices of DRAM around the year 2000. The effect is that consumers paid more for DRAM than they should have paid had the price been determined by the market. The case was not

                • Actually, I remember that fake DRAM collusion scandal of 2003 well, DRAM prices dropped like crazy in the 1990s and early 2000s, and after that price-fixing scandal prices stopped dropping or dropped much slower -- explain that. Reference (look at figure 1 and 2, note the steepness of the decline prior to 2002 when they were "busted"): https://aiimpacts.org/trends-i... [aiimpacts.org]

                  • By "fake"collusion you mean major DRAM makers settled for hundreds of millions of dollars? Again, anti-trust is not only about 1 company controlling the market and raising prices 100x. It seems you are unwilling to acknowledge antitrust means more than your one, extreme example.
                    • I guess you still can't explain how the rate of DRAM prices dramatically slowed down after the anti-trust cases, nor can you explain how the prices fell?

                    • I guess you still can't explain how the rate of DRAM prices dramatically slowed down after the anti-trust cases, nor can you explain how the prices fell?

                      What part of "antitrust is not only about 1 company raising prices 100x" is difficult to understand? It seems you are unwilling to acknowledge or think outside of your example. To review, multiple DRAM makers colluded to fix prices. Price fixing does not mean prices always go up. Price fixing does not mean that price never changes. In this case, the makers ARTIFICIALLY set the prices by agreeing with each other . They did not let the market decide what prices should be. They were caught and fined.

                      1. Infineon
          • if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can still emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers

            You've a lot to learn about how business works, kid.

            No one can stop a small shop from opening up next to a Walmart, either. But the ability to do so doesn't mean anything when Walmart starts selling every item that shop sells for a loss and undercuts their business to the point where they can't make a profit.

            Amazon have been caught on multiple occasions abusing their position as both marketplace and effective manufacturer in ways that may/do violate antitrust laws. There is such a thing as a de facto monopo

      • She claims Amazon can get a monopoly and then raise prices. Her claim is that anyone who makes something cheap and becomes popular will be able to increase the price on that item. Has that happened? It can't happen.

        The fact is, if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers. I mean, if a charger cost $1000 from Amazon .. word that somebody else can provide that for $10 will easily spread. Amazon is not able to bl

        • She claims Amazon can get a monopoly and then raise prices.

          This is true of any monopoly. So what?

          Her claim is that anyone who makes something cheap and becomes popular will be able to increase the price on that item.

          Again, true of any monopoly

          Has that happened?

          Historically yes. See the history of antitrust

          It can't happen.

          And yet it has happened.

          The fact is, if amazon starts raising prices on say USB chargers a competitor can emerge because nobody is preventing anybody else from making USB chargers.

          First of all this pricing concern is Antitrust 101. Second the point is that if Amazon controls the distribution of chargers it is not about who makes chargers so you missed the point. The consumer will have to pay what Amazon wants not what the market allows. Third, you are countering her speculation with your own speculation.

          I mean, if a charger cost $1000 from Amazon .. word that somebody else can provide that for $10 will easily spread.

          Did she cite this example or are you making this

    • That's the point of courts. Turning "I know what you did last night" to "now I got camera proof of what you did last night".

    • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      I don't notice Amazon or other companies complain about bias when the bias is in their favour.

  • by cjonslashdot ( 904508 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @11:16AM (#61537346)
    Of course she has opinions. It is her field, and her opinions are why she was put in her current role!!!
    • Re:makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @12:08PM (#61537548) Homepage Journal

      The commission is a law enforcement agency. This is like a defendant complaining that the district attorney suspects them of committing a crime.

      The way the commission operates is that it always tries to settle the matter via a *consent decree*, which is a binding *agreement* between the defendant and the commission which is approved of, an enforced by, a federal judge, *who is impartial*. Defendants agree to consent decrees because they do not have to admit criminal liability, and the corrective action in the decree is always more lenient than what they'd have to do if they litigated.

      But Amazon doesn't have to accept a consent decree. They can always fight the FTC's findings in court, in front of a judge who will be obligated to be impartial. But if they lose, that impartiality cuts both ways.

  • And so (Score:2, Insightful)

    Not an unreasonable position. She was in attack dog mode ala politicians seeking power.

    Witness some of the responses to this thread as to how effective that was.

  • by MooseTick ( 895855 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @11:22AM (#61537372) Homepage

    ""Given her long track record of detailed pronouncements about Amazon, and her repeated proclamations that Amazon has violated the antitrust laws"

    Anytime a DA tried to go after the mafia or any company that has a long history of bad business practices, they could use this argument. That would end up having the worst violators get free passes because its seems like everyone is picking on them. There would be no one left to drive a prosecution.

    • by Burdell ( 228580 )

      Except a DA doesn't campaign on a platform of "I'm going to arrest Joe Smith for stealing $27 from Dollar General". And this is really more like a judge saying something like that while trying to gain office.

      People obviously have opinions, but when you sit down to judge somebody else's behavior, you're not supposed to bring all your preconceived notions into play - you are supposed to judge the facts as they are presented. It's not clear that she can do that.

      • Agree! So sad that so many people miss the distinction between the might-of-the-Government needing to be fair, vice just agreeing with one side which you favor. Any Government Official needs to be super careful about tainting their impartiality even with statements/actions before they became a Government Official.

      • So Judges never run for office saying they are tough on crime? Who knew...
        • Do you see the difference between a judge saying they are tough on crime and a judge repeatedly going on record as saying that oh_my_080980980 is a criminal and needs to be in prison? What about if that judge also had the power to START a new trial on a whim and you (oh_my_080980980) were the defendant? Would you have a problem this that judge being impartial now? Hopefully you see the issue now. Regardless of how this plays out, she is a liability for the FTC. If she does recuse herself and Amazon los

      • Except a DA doesn't campaign on a platform of "I'm going to arrest Joe Smith for stealing $27 from Dollar General"

        What do you think they mean when they campaign on "I'm gonna clean up the streets!"?

        Also, why do you think the FTC chair is an elected position?

        And this is really more like a judge saying something like that while trying to gain office.

        No, the FTC's power is nothing like a judge's power. They basically can ask nicely, and then sue.

        but when you sit down to judge somebody else's behavior, you're not supposed to bring all your preconceived notions into play - you are supposed to judge the facts as they are presented

        That's the judge's job when the FTC sues, not the FTC's job.

    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      Only if that DA had made numerous public comments regarding their opinions about a suspect before they became DA,
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @11:25AM (#61537392)

    "I request this trial to be struck down!"
    "On what grounds?"
    "Mostly on the grounds that otherwise I'd lose"

    • It's not even a trial. It's someone who thinks they ought to go to trial. Then at a trial Amazon will have a chance to make their case to an unbiased judge or jury.

      Of course, the prosecutor is always biased.

  • She probably shouldn't be chairwoman of the investigation. She has come with a predetermined outcome and she'll find her way to it.

    Look at those running the Arizona recount. if you didn't like that, you shouldn't like this.

    • by vux984 ( 928602 )

      You might as well argue the opposite too... amazons lawyers should recuse themselves from the defense because they come with a predetermined position ... that amazon isn't guilty of anything ever. Surely we agree that's ridiculous?

      I agree the chairwoman shouldn't be the JUDGE. That should go to an impartial person as best as possible, but to argue that government agencies shouldn't be able to investigate companies they think broke the law... because thinking the companies broke the law makes them biased ..


      • You might as well argue the opposite too... amazons lawyers should recuse themselves from the defense because they come with a predetermined position ... that amazon isn't guilty of anything ever. Surely we agree that's ridiculous?"

        A defense attorney isn't expected to be impartial. An investigation is different.

        I think she should be a part of the investigation. I don't think she should be the chairwoman.

  • What are they seeking? To prevent her from being the judge, or trying to silence her?

    Because JMHO... Amazon should not be allowed to silence commissioners or keep them from participating in meetings to observe and discuss and assist in investigations. They should only IMO be able to recuse them from voting on or deciding the outcome of the case/investigations / ensure they are not in a position to suppress or warp evidence or materials.

    Being against Amazon should not exclude her from being

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...